Not only has the government – and parliament – failed to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in Britain post-Brexit, many such citizens are already being refused permanent residency due to not having had Comprehensive Sickness Insurance. Aleksandra Herbeć outlines the vagueness surrounding the up-until-now obscure requirement for permanent residency, and explains how such a vital prerequisite should have been publicised instead.

The legal loophole you have never heard of

The term ‘Comprehensive Sickness Insurance’ (CSI) has suddenly become a hot topic among EU citizens in the UK. For many, as well as for their British relatives and friends, this was the first time they have ever heard about CSI. Yet for many years, the CSI has been a requirement for all EU citizens studying in the UK or residing here as self-sufficient persons. Without it, they cannot exercise their treaty rights and acquire permanent residency, which would normally be automatically granted after spending a continuous period of five years in the country. But, without a valid CSI, the years spent in the UK do not count towards permanent residency. Ominously, the current rules – some of which were introduced as recently as February 2017 – have been interpreted by lawyers as giving the Home Office the power to even deport EU nationals who do not have CSI.

The British media scrambled to publish curious assurances that the rules on deportation will not be acted on. The Independent went as far as quoting an immigration barrister saying that he does not think that “the Home Office is going to enforce this against say, the French wife of a British citizen. I think they’re using it against people they don’t like, like Polish rough sleepers.”

The CSI is a concern for thousands of EU nationals who, for a proportion of their period of residence in the UK, were either a student, or a self-sufficient person (e.g. carers, stay-at-home spouses, or part-time workers). This would include cases in which an EU national worked full-time for 4 years and then enrolled at a UK university without having a CSI, thus unwittingly interrupting the 5-year residency rule.

It is hard to understand why the centrality of CSI has surfaced only now, while the rules surrounding it are also vague. Information on CSI is curiously sparse, being only briefly mentioned in the guidance notes and application. More broadly, the UK government has been passing laws on CSI without communicating them widely, not even through the organisations directly in contact with EU citizens, such as universities, while upon arriving to the UK, EU nationals have not been provided with clear information on this requirement.

Not so ‘comprehensive’

Once an EU citizen somehow finds out about CSI, they face another challenge: there does not seem to be a reliable definition on what private insurance coverage would qualify as comprehensive in the eyes of the Home Office. Some private insurers advertise CSIs, but state they are not liable if their insurance ends up not meeting requirements. An insurance broker contacted by the author claimed that the Home Office has not issued guidelines on CSI and that they go by what is reported in the media and by their own experience with residency applications.

Nor does having health insurance from another EU country necessarily mean an EU citizen has CSI. Instead, they should have had a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) issued by another EU member state for throughout the period during which they were a student or self-sufficient person in the UK. However, by residing in the UK, many EU citizens would have lost access to healthcare in their country of origin, seizing to be covered by such health insurance as a result. In a further administrative paradox, relying on an EHIC issued by another EU country will only be accepted if one confirms their intention not to live in the UK permanently.

The intention behind the CSI altogether is so that students and self-sufficient person do not become a burden on state resources during the qualifying period. Yet this logic is unclear: the permanent residency application only requires one to have had a CSI – not to have made use of it. Indeed, people with CSIs can still access GPs and all treatments on the NHS. EU citizens are in many circumstances required or strongly encouraged to register with a GP, including when enrolling at a university. Moreover, private insurers do not cover all treatments even under the ‘comprehensive’ sickness insurance, often delegating the treatment of chronic conditions to the NHS.

The CSI is also discriminatory. Contrary to the Immigration Health Surcharge paid by international students in the UK, there is no standardised rate for private CSI for EU nationals. The CSI premiums depend on age, sex, health, and prior conditions, among others. This disadvantages EU nationals who are women, older, and have current or prior health conditions. Even the cheaper options for healthy young adults (c. 30-40£/month) could be unaffordable to many.

Obtaining CSI seems to be a purely administrative, box-ticking task for the PR form, without much real-life relevance or benefit to EU citizens, or to the NHS. In its current form, the CSI confers an unnecessary financial burden and a discriminatory barrier to residency.

How about universities?

It seems that UK universities failed to offer their EU students explicit information about CSI. In certain cases, they offered reassurance to the opposite – that EU students do not require health insurance, further signaling the obscurity surrounding CSI, with few institutions equipped to offer specific guidance even today.

The author of this article has yet to meet an EU student who knew about the CSI before the issue surfaced in the media in the last weeks. Many still do not know about it. Some websites suggest that some university application forms for EU/EEA nationals ask whether the student holds CSI. However, given the legal implications of not having CSI, it does not seem sufficient to be informing students about it via a box-ticking exercise or a brief mention on application forms. Crucially, the information about CSI should always be contextualised and accompanied by information clarifying that (i) access to the NHS does not count, and (ii) that CSI is required to exercise treaty rights and accumulate residency rights.

What should have been done about CSI

The CSI regulations have not been implemented effectively, but this could have been avoided. The legality, practicality, and logistics of CSI should have been scrutinised before implementing the rules, and if they were still deemed to be appropriate, then:

The UK government should have been more transparent and vocal about the rules for EU citizens, and particularly CSI.

There should have been procedures in place to ensure that EU citizens planning to come to the UK, and those already residing here, but also British citizens who might be related to or employing EU nationals, were appropriately informed.

Information about the CSI requirement should have been disseminated in a useful and non-threatening manner through many channels: at passport controls, via GPs, schools, religious associations, banks, the media, unions, as well as universities. Such a campaign should have been initiated ahead of the proposed changes to legislation and should have continued ever since.

A simple government website should have been set up with comprehensive information on CSI, listing clear rules as to what cover would qualify for a private CSI, and a list of approved providers. This would have ensured that EU nationals did not purchase wrong or invalid policies.

Universities should have been provided with guidelines on CSI, and so that they could inform EU applicants.

EU citizens should have been provided with means to acquire CSI in time, including ‘buffer periods’ to accommodate a change in circumstances.

EU citizens should have been able to make direct contributions to the NHS fund, if they wished to, rather than to private insurers.

Challenging the CSI requirement

The current regulations and procedures surrounding this requirement put EU citizens in the UK at a disadvantage when they apply for residency. Not surprisingly, CSI has been considered unlawful by some lawyers, and has been challenged in UK courts with no success. Several petitions and MPs have also called for abolishing the rule. EU Rights Clinic tries to put a new case together and calls for stories on PR being denied due to lack of CSI. The time is also high for universities to join their plea to protect the rights of their current and former students.

Abolishing the CSI requirements altogether – and especially for permanent residency applications – seems the only reasonable course of action. However, abolishing the CSI itself will not be meaningful without further securing EU nationals’ rights in the UK post-Brexit.

_____

Note: A longer version of this post was originally posted on the LSE Brexit blog. Featured image credit: @RochDW, licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0

About the Author

Aleksandra Herbeć (@AHerbec) is a PhD candidate in the Department of Behavioural Science and Health at UCL. She works in the field of tobacco control, and her current research focuses on the development and evaluation of digital behaviour change interventions and capacity building in the treatment of tobacco dependency.

[…] permanent residency after living in the U.K. for 18 years due to an insurance requirement that many were unaware existed; an Italian couple who, despite being permanent residents in Oxford, are considering leaving the […]

Things like this are shitty but by no means is this endemic to the UK. Obtaining residency is supposed to hard.

And until you become a full citizen paying NATIONAL INSURANCE you’ll have to do it. Unless you were happy using your card.

To be honest though, I’ve read a lot of people on this thread saying they feel naturalised.

Yet all’ve they done is insult and moan the country and people they claim they want to be apart of so badly. More than a natural Brit!

I voted remain but post brexit, seeing the reactions of the EU and it’s citizens. I’d vote leave. Another pretentious, hypocritical bureaucracy.

( Ps businesses have a right to discriminate in providing insurance to people of different objective factors such as age, sex Etc because they have different needs, OAPs require more health care than young adults. Private healthcare could work if healthcare professionals didn’t collude to keep price high!)

A lot of incorrect statements in this post.
(1) No, the right of residence in an EU country for EU citizens is supposed to be EASY. That is why it is called Citizenship of the EU.
(2) Citizenship of the UK is not contingent on paying National Insurance. This is just nonsense.
(3) The reactions of the EU to the nationalistic, racist and aggressive pro-Brexit statements has been rational and restrained. The problematic bureaucracy and nasty political rhetoric is from the UK government and its far right allies.
(4) As far as private insurance is concerned, the USA has shown it to be a disaster. This is why all of Europe follows a State model, which is designed to provide protection for those who need costly medical treatments, have pre-existing conditions,etc. Of course, the Tory right would love to adopt the US model — allowing the very rich to make profits off the backs of the working and middle class majority.

Has anyone had luck with a CSI from another EU country? I am from Spain and family has been paying for myself a CSI there, so just wondering. I do not think this might work so but I will try…

I have been working since 2008, but in 2013/2014 I studied at university for 10 months, and after this I have been working until present. So basically I have 1 year gap as most of you that will unfortunately screw me up.

I have to say that while a was at UNI I worked for like 3/4 weeks but the total income of that employment was just £579.

I am sad, all we did for this country and now they come up with this loophole 🙁

I am married with my BRITISH husband for THREE YEARS now, we had a son together who is 18 months and BRITISH and i am SCARED AND HORRIFIED that one day someone is going to knock on my door and take me AWAY from the people i LOVE. I want to apply for the permanent residence since i stayed over here for 6 years as a student BUT i don’t have the CSI that. I’m DEVASTATED. I feel that this country doesn’t want me. In fact it wants to break one family apart with stricter and tighter regulations always against the European immigrants not acknowledging ANYTHING we OFFER in this country. SORRY BRITAIN, THAT’S NOT COOL.

I am quite confused by all this and I wonder if the regulations have changed since this post was written, on the basis of an email I received from the PM in October (see below).
My wife and I are both EU nationals and we have moved to the UK in 2017. I earn above the income threshold for non-EU migrants, but my wife is currently self-employed. She is setting up a business but I wonder if she will (ever) reach the income threshold of £6,025 (after which she would be paying National Insurance). We considered taking out CSI for her, but decided not to do it, because (a) it is expensive, (b) it was unclear what private health insurance would, in fact, qualify as CSI and (c) on 19 Oct I received an email from the Prime Minister on the post-Brexit settled status in the UK which had the line ‘People applying will not have to account for every trip they have taken in and out of the UK and will no longer have to demonstrate Comprehensive Sickness Insurance as they currently have to under EU rules.’
Any advice would be much appreciated: is it likely that my wife will run into problems re CSI after the UK leaves the EU or are we fine as it is, based on that email from 19 Oct?

Hello !
I am a Brit, 67, living in Berlin along with my non EU national two 40s yo daughters and grandchildren 21,13 yo under same roof in self sufficient capacity. I did not have CSI and they are going to apply for EURC. Is there any scope, I can buy CSI in backdated covering whole period? Many thanks sblex@yahoo.com

I just had very unpleasant conversation with Home Office EU immigration support for RP and BC. Very arrogant and unpleasant offering rather trite, than genuine support and understanding personal circumstances.

I came to the UK before my country was completely in the EU. This fact matter in some circumstances as the CSI was implemented by EU legislation in 2011 (I think May). Here HO officer state, that it is and was my responsibility to make sure I do have every information about CSI – not and any university, not a GP, not HMR and I should have it before I enter this country. Here, however, is the issue – I entered as a worker and remind worker for 4,5 years!!! And then enrolled on university for 1 academic year (which is not full year!) and then work again since. However, this will broke the rule contains 5 years. Oh, how ridiculous! I argue, that when I left my country, I did not have a chance to have this information as the legislation was not implemented, my country of origin terminated my health insurance as this was their law. I asked through all my period of my live here if I do need any additional insurance (GP, university, CAB) and nobody had a clue, because they all assured me, that I am eligible to free NHS care. Nobody has a clue about CSI. Even I received very confusing assurance from the NHS, that I am again eligible free health care when study.
I felt, that from my own initiative I should add more to me and family assurance and I get to broker and injure myself on the Premium level with all the critical illness, Life plan, Income benefits, Best doctor plan. Unfortunately, none of this count and I, like most of people cannot apply for PR.
I do think we should have the opportunity to challenge this or get over to pay off the period, although this is not an option for reasons.
Here I really question the reasoning behind this requirement and I do not agree with the HM officer, that this is our responsibility to find out as the law constantly changing and, if you are not informed you can miss just due to language barrier. Every act was always appropriately introduce and implemented – here they all should pay for their mistake, if we have to too, no?!
I feel completely naturalised and my two children too I do not think, that think such insurance will have to determinate residential status!

Hi. I have been employed part time for the past 7 years. Last year I applied for PR card and got in within 8 weeks no problem. Wasn’t aware that I needed to have a separate Heath insurance ? I am originally from Poland..

Hello, I am in the process of applying for my PR as a non-eea spouse, my husband is Italian and got his Blue Card PR in 2013. Both of us have been working and been living in UK since 2004. None of this Comprehensive I surance have been mentioned before, do I have to take out this insurance before sending in my application for PR? Stressed as I don’t know what to do now?

Hello Margie,
If u r applying for PR, yes u must have a CSI before sending the application. However, I don’t think u can apply for PR. I am Greek and my husband is Albanian (non-EU). He applied for a 5 year residence permit with me as his supporter. If ur husband is working he can support ur application without a CSI. This is the best to do at the moment as the whole permits system will change from 2019. There will be Settlement Permits for EU citizens and their non EU citizens spouses with much easier application process (as they say). Permanent Residency will change to Settlement Permits. Read my post below where I have links to more info.
I wish u all the best!

I have been in the UK for almost 6 years. I have my NI number for the whole time, I’m working and I’m a student. I wanted to apply for residency and just found out of the CSI existing. I don’t have any solution or a smart comment to be fair I just feel outraged right now and all I can say is ‘BLOODY HELL!’. And here I thought that applying for residency is the fairly easy bit …

Anet,
if you have worked and studied, I don’t think you need to be worried about the CSI, just apply as a worker, since that is satisfying the requirements. if you work, you pay NI and others. I did work and study, but unfortunately, my job didn’t cover the entire course period. Hope you find this useful.

Did you manage to apply? And what did you mean by your work did not cover the entire course period? Break in employment I would assume? I am trying to compile the right documents for this PR. I graduated last summer and I’ve been in full time employment ever since. However, I took 11 months break two years ago as I traveled for an internship in the US. I will apply as a worker (part-time) but not sure whether me being enrolled in a full-time degree would support my temporary absence..

When I came here in 2005 I was told that because I had an under-active thyroid that I would fall under a Medical Exemption and that I would need to register with NHS. Does anyone know how this would work with Comprehensive Sickness Insurance?

Hello Alexandra,
Thank you for your informative article.
I am very confused too. I am an EU citizen and arrived at UK in June 2011. I was employed till August 2013 and then I stayed at home to help my children with their A Levels (they are students now).
My husband is Albanian (non-EU) and arrived at UK in August 2012 and he obtained his 5 year Residence Card with me as his sponsor. He got a job immediately and he is still working. So, I was living on the family income that he provided.
In Nov 2016 I started a PGCE course and I am still a student with a bursary. My husband’s Residence Card ends in Feb 2018 so we are working on his renewal application and that’s how I found out about CSI. I am going to get a CSI now but this does not cover the period where I was self-sufficient or student.
From the Home Office they said that if I get CSI now it would be ok and the first 2 years that i was working can count as me being a sponsor. But in the application form I must show that I had CSI covering all the years.
So what is my situation now? Because I have heard cases where the sponsor works and the non-EU member doesn’t but not the other way around.
Any light to shed?

Hi Ladislav,
No I haven’t managed it yet. However, I just submitted the application for residence card and I’ll let you know what the Home Office said.
Update on the situation: My husband cannot apply for the Residence Permit (10 years) as I have not been a qualified person since I did not have a CSI throughout. However, he can apply for a Residence Card (5 years), i.e. renewing his existing one, and I support him since I now have CSI (done on 2nd Nov 2017). If he gets the card then he can stay.
Nevertheless, when Brexit is finalised (in about 2 years as they told me by the Home Office) his residence card will be obsolete and we will both have to apply for a Settlement Card which is not out yet but it will be. As, i heard over the news, Teresa discusses that the Settlement Card application will be far more simple and CSI will not be a requirement. But this is still in negotiation and hasn’t been approved yet.

Thanks Evgenia! Appreciate your reply a lot. Hope it goes well and you get sorted soon. Please let us know if possible. I most likely won’t wait until the new legislation comes into place, since I need to act fast.

Evgenia
November 18, 2017 at 9:45 pm

Thank you Ladislav. I wish u all the best! I ‘ll let u know as soon as I have something new.

May I ask where did you buy your CSI and how much do you have to pay for it yearly? Thank you.

Kind regards,

Judyta

Evgenia
January 8, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Hi Judyta!
I bought it with Health-On-Line and it costs about £53 per month.
After a long search of what is needed I decided that the best value for money was there.
I have now submitted everything for my husband’s visa and when they reply I will update here whether this CSI was accepted or not by the Home Office.

Best regards,
Evgenia

Deborah Rea
January 8, 2018 at 5:29 pm

I was being charged £243 a month for CSI by Freedom Health. The broker told me that no one was refused by the Home Office. The problem is one doesn’t know if the plan they have is comprehensive enough.

I only just heard about this Comprehensive Sickness Insurance even though I’ve been in this country since 2005 when I came here to do a Master’s Degree. When I went through all the medical checks I was given free NHS treatment which included prescriptions because of a thryoid disorder. Before that, I was going to pay for medical insurance as I was told that I had to.

While I originate from the U.S.A. my mother was English and my father American; my mother was not allowed to pass down her lineage to me, therefore I sought and was granted foreign-born Irish citizen in 2007 which is based on a 1921 Treaty between Ireland and England. This Treaty allows me to have all the same rights as a UK citizen and therefore I did not seek UK citizenship (I later discovered that a new law had been passed allowing me to become English however it had exactly the same components as my Irish citizenship so I didn’t see the need to pay unnecessary money).

I am now trying to bring over my disabled adult son to the UK as he needs care. I fully understand that he would have to pay for his own medical insurance. I get that. However, as an Irish E.U. national as well as having a U.S. Social Security Totalization Agreement in place in which my national insurance and my U.S. work credits were added together to give me my pension I am now being told that if considered self-sufficient I would have to pay for CSI. So I am going to have to pay CSI whether I bring my son over here or whether I meet the test for being self-sufficient. And yet, it was the UK health system who deemed I should have free NHS care and prescriptions in the first place. I am exactly the same person as I was in 2005 albeit now retired.

Teresa May has sold out all E.U. citizens living in the U.K. We should all be banding together and start up a petition.

Hi, you state that premiums depend on age, sex, health, and prior conditions, among others. This is inaccurate. CSI does not load or rate based on the gender of the applicant. The gender directive (brought in by the FCA circa December 2012) meant that Insurance companies were no longer able to discriminate based on gender which includes pricing applicants differently depending on Sex

Hello Alexandra,
I was a PhD student for three and a half years and like every other EU student I know, I was told (by the university) that I only needed to register with the NHS surgery to have access to healthcare (there was a recommended one on campus for students). After a couple of years I found out about the CSI requirement for EU citizens (students), and when I asked the admin staff at the uni they did not know anything about it and seemed very surprised that I should consider taking out private medical insurance. Anyway, I took out a fully comprehensive private medical insurance (which cost me over £650) – I specifically asked the insurance company for an insurance that would comply with the Home Office’s requirements for CSI for EU nationals, and indeed they advertised this insurance specifically as one that the Home Office accepted. I then applied for a registration certificate, which was rejected on the grounds that the insurance had a “moratorium” underwriting. I have been assured by the insurance company who issued the insurance, and by other insurance companies, that there is no private medical insurance with a greater level of cover than the one I took out – which covers me for everything except pre-existing medical conditions. In short, it comes down to this: if you are a student or self-sufficient EU national in the UK, and you have absolutely ANY medical condition, you are not eligible to exercise EU treaty rights in the UK. This is effectively what the Home Office is saying, if not in so many words.

I read your article with much interest and I found it very informative. However, I believe there needs to be a clarification regarding the point you make, where you say: “The CSI is a concern for thousands of EU nationals who, for a proportion of their period of residence in the UK, were either a student, or a self-sufficient person (e.g. carers, stay-at-home spouses, or part-time workers).”. I am an EU citizen and I have been working full-time in the UK for several years. Recently, I received my document certifying permanent residence and I contacted the Home Office for further information regarding the CSI, as my wife and I became very anxious with all this discussion on the Internet about the need for CSI for stay-at-home spouses. The officer on the phone explained to me that, if she applies as a self-sufficient person, then indeed she will need to provide evidence of CSI for the entire 5 year period she has been residing in the UK. However, if she applies for a registration certificate or residence card as a family member (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-registration-certificate-or-residence-card-for-a-family-member-form-eea-fm), then she will not need to provide evidence of CSI, as I will be her sponsor. I believe that this is an important clarification as it appears that in the case of married couples, where one partner exercises their treaty rights under the category of ‘work’ or ‘self-employment’ (and not as a self-sufficient person), the CSI does not seem to be required for the person who is not working.

I thought I would provide you with this information as CSI, as you rightly say, has become a hot topic of discussion among EU citizens in the UK and the majority of us feels pretty unsafe about our future in the UK during the post-Brexit era.

You are correct in what you are saying, however this rule does not apply to the EU citizens with British spouses. Such people cannot have a ‘sponsor’ and need to apply on the strength of their residency only.I do not know the statistics exactly, but there are thousands of British-EU couples who cannot benefit from this ‘sponsorship’ idea – which, belittling in a sense as it is, maybe should be considered as another way forward.

As the author said ‘The CSI is a concern for thousands of EU nationals who, for a proportion of their period of residence in the UK, were either a student, or a self-sufficient person (e.g. carers, stay-at-home spouses, or part-time workers). This would include cases in which an EU national worked full-time for 4 years and then enrolled at a UK university without having a CSI, thus unwittingly interrupting the 5-year residency rule.’
I am one of such people: worked full-time for several years, enrolled on an UG and then a PG course, never heard of or have CSI, married to a Scot for several years and now with no chance to receive PR. I have a CSI now (since February), though it makes our financial situation difficult as I still study. Unless they will abolish it, or repeal in some way I will be extremely worried for the next several years. Also, with the knowledge that I broke, albeit unknowingly, Home Office’s immigration rules there is a possibility that I might be refused for example a citizenship in the future. CSI is a massive problem, particularly when people have been living in a stable situation and did not even see a need (vide myself) to check what is required to apply for a PR card/ citizenship because they did not need/ wanted one at first place and sincerely believed that they do exercise their rights.

Friends of mine who moved to France came across problems similar to this several years ago. As I understand it, the EHIC is precisely for people who move between EU countries as visitors or temporary residents and relies on treaties that allow member states to reclaim healthcare expenditure by one country on behalf of another’s visiting residents. People who move permanently, or who decide to become residents, are obliged to take out private health insurance to cover the period between their losing their EHIC cover and gaining the rights of a permanent resident. I don’t think any EU country advertises this fact; it is for the individual wishing to move to make enquiries.

Almost correct, but not quite. The EHIC is merely a recentish electronic innovation to update the old manual system of intergovernmental requests for payment of healthcare provisions between EU states. This was done under the 1971 Regulation 1408/71 and covered those temporarily in another country for tourism, provision of services and employment search who needed emergency healthcare treatment. It also covered pensioners living in another EU country. In all cases, the bill for medical treatment is sent to the country of insurance for the person treated. For that to work, the person has to be insured (which in the UK means having a current national insurance record of contributions or being in receipt of a UK pension).
~
Where there is ambiguity is with those persons not in employment (or receiving a pension or other state benefits from their home country) but residing in another EU country. This particularly concerns married women who have stopped working to bring up a family, for example. The UK government has chosen to exploit this ambiguity to attack the rights of EEA nationals living in the UK.
~
I can also confirm, at a personal level, that in all my dealings with the Dept. of Work, their formal letters were in clear breach of EU law, muddled even in terms of UK law, and explicitly threatening. I have received letters telling me that “as an EEA national, you do not have the right to reside in the UK” — when I am actually a UK national. The tone of official correspondence with government departments (not to mention the incorrect statements of fact and of law) is aggressive and unpleasant to the point of being threatening to those without secure legal knowledge or access to legal advice.
~
There is some older literature on the topic of intra-EC social insurance — legal and empirical — that I co-authored and is published by LSE in 1990. It is not very easy to get hold of, because it is not online. But it may be of interest when recalling the older times of the UK’s relatively peaceful relations with the EU.
~
Gough I., Baldwin-Edwards M., ‘The Impact of EC Membership on Social Security and Health in the UK’, in: Mangen S. (ed.), The Implications of 1992 for Social Insurance, Cross-National Research Group, 1990.

Hi, I was a PhD student at LSE between 2004-2010, and I am now suffering under this dilemma. I had a baby in 2012 and therefore also have an employment break (+6 months job-seeking) towards the more recent years. It is torturous for me to do my PR application because of CSI.

I wish to be able to see my old uni documents, whether there was any kind of question or information about CSI. I do not have them anymore. I was looking a lot into health insurance at the time, but all information I came across was about the NHS and having to register when having an address in the UK. So, that was what I did. I did not know about CSI since three months ago or so!

I believe that Theresa May as home secretary has worked up this perfect loophole for the home office, showing how anti free movement she must have been all along since 2011.

There must be new appeals out there, but I unfortunately do not know any details about the cases.

The behaviour of the British government — the Tories — with this CSI invention is nothing short of disgusting. While still part of a rights-based regime of the European Union, they sought to remove citizens’ rights by subterfuge and behaviour appropriate to mafia thugs. I cannot see how the CJEU or the UK Supreme Court could possibly allow this attack on human rights to be tolerated.
~
Of course, what it does show conclusively is not so much a structural incompatibility of the UK with the European Union but the incompatibility between the EU approach (developed over many decades) and the radical authoritarian mentality of the UK Tories, pioneered especially by Theresa May. The failure to inform all persons affected by this doubtless unlawful legislation indicates malicious intent — to surreptitiously deprive persons of their legal rights.
~
I wonder, seriously, how many EU citizens will remain in the UK if they have a choice in the matter. It will be no surprise to me, at least, if the consequences of the extreme right hijacking the country is that it will face a decade or more of serious economic decline and worrying social unrest. We can predict that May will attempt to label all social unrest as terrorism, of course: by that mechanism, a genuine neo-fascist state can be more easily implemented.

Unemployed EU citizens have the legal right to reside in any EU country. There are restrictions on their right to claim social security benefits, but other than that they are legally resident. Your comment indicates a complete ignorance of the law and of the concept of Citizen of the European Union, which gives all of us the right to move freely and reside anywhere within the EU.

The behaviour of the British government — the Tories — with this CSI invention is nothing short of disgusting. While still part of a rights-based regime of the European Union, they sought to remove citizens’ rights by subterfuge and behaviour appropriate to mafia thugs. I cannot see how the CJEU or the UK Supreme Court could possibly allow this attack on human rights to be tolerated.
~
Of course, what it does show conclusively is not so much a structural incompatibility of the UK with the European Union but the incompatibility between the EU approach (developed over many decades) and the radical authoritarian mentality of the UK Tories, pioneered especially by Theresa May. The failure to inform all persons affected by this doubtless unlawful legislation indicates malicious intent — to surreptitiously deprive persons of their legal rights.
~
I wonder, seriously, how many EU citizens will remain in the UK if they have a choice in the matter. It will be no surprise to me, at least, if the consequences of the extreme right hijacking the country is that it will face a decade or more of serious economic decline and worrying social unrest. We can predict that May will attempt to label all social unrest as terrorism, of course: by that mechanism, a genuine neo-fascist state can be more easily implemented.

Disclaimer

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please read our comments policy before commenting.

We use cookies on this site to understand how you use our content, and to give you the best browsing experience. To accept cookies, click continue. To find out more about cookies and change your preferences, visit our Cookie Policy.